Demonstration of how RNA-like molecules spontaneously form

Originally posted by Soothfast
Gee, I don't know, it seems to me that it's rather more bizarre to claim that tens of thousands of evolutionary scientists, molecular biologists, geneticists, embryologists, paleontologists, and other advanced specialists, are either all a bunch of blooming idiots who have been "duped" by a lie, or have all been conspiring for generations to propagate a li ...[text shortened]... me. It's about you versus the world scientific consensus. You have your work cut out for you.

Consensus? So in other words, if most or all of the worlds scientists agreed based on all of the recent evidence (spanning the last 50 years) that evolution could not have possibly occurred, then you would have no choice but to agree with them?

I mean really, when in history have a majority of the worlds scientists ever been wrong, about anything? So how in the world could they possibly be wrong about anything now, right? After all, that was then and this is now...

Are you seriously suggesting that a majority (consensus) of scientists cannot be wrong, or are you simply going along to get along? As I've already pointed out, there exists an extremely strong motivation for believing that evolution can be the only way life started and developed. Like it or not, scientists are just as prone as anyone else to narrow their search and ignore evidence that does not support their theories when looking for validation of a belief.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Consensus? So in other words, if most or all of the worlds scientists agreed based on all of the recent evidence (spanning the last 50 years) that evolution could not have possibly occurred, then you would have no choice but to agree with them?

I mean really, when in history have a majority of the worlds scientists ever been wrong, about [i]anything[/i ...[text shortened]... nd ignore evidence that does not support their theories when looking for validation of a belief.

Tell me, when have the majority of scientists been wrong about a theory that turned out to be false? A theory, not a hypothesis. A theory that has stood up to test after test for a century, and fits empirical observation.

What creationists do these days (and this is almost exclusively a phenomenon observed in the wild among narrow niches of American Protestants) is cherry-pick from the vast body of scientific (and not-so-scientific) literature those occasional outliers authored by either cranks or mavericks who may say, for example, the Big Bang didn't happen, or evolution is bogus, or some other radical notion.

Okay, that's cute, but there's a reason why historical examples of the maverick being right and the scientific establishment being wrong are always famous and get us misty-eyed about the heroism of the underdog: they're rare. The odds are generally stacked against the maverick, because normally the scientific consensus is correct. And in every instance I can think of where the maverick turns out to be right, it's to do with some trifling notion people just assumed was true without having actually put to a test. Aristotle said heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects, and people believed it without question for 2000 years before Galileo falsified it with a simple empirical test. Physicists in the 19th century believed in an "ethereal ether" that pervaded space and propagated light as a wave. Astronomers up until the middle of the 20th century fancied the universe was static instead of expanding. Geologists took it for granted that continents were rooted in place and never moved. All untested assumptions, all wrong.

Again, when have the majority of scientists (over 99% in the case of evolution) been wrong about a theory -- an extensively tested theory -- that turned out to be false?

There is absolutely no "trend" over the past 50 years, as you claim, of data and experiment pointing away from the theory that biological evolution and speciation occurs. Some who frequent this forum routinely cherry-pick "findings" from cranks who in turn cherry-picked nuggets from valid publications and skewered out of context. Often the crank will, say, cherry-pick from the writings of a maverick who actually does have a Ph.D. in some kind of science (not necessarily remotely related to biology). The maverick might not actually be claiming that evolution is false, but rather has a quarrel with the scientific consensus concerning the precise mechanism whereby evolution operates. The imaginative crank will twist the maverick's words to make it sound like a "biologist" has "disproven" evolution. This makes an impression on impressionable creationists, to be sure, especially if the maverick does indeed have a degree in biology. But it means nothing by itself. Just as the word of a botanist carries little weight in matters of zoology, so too should the word of an ethologist or ecologist be viewed with grave skepticism when it speaks on matters of paleontology or evolutionary genetics.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Get used to it, not everyone runs in the same circles you do always using
terms the same way you do.
Kelly

I finally get it now. You don't answer some very simple questions to explain what you are saying because you are talking complete gibberish.

Originally posted by lemon lime
No, evolution started with a hypothesis, and scientists who like what the hypothesis implied came to the conclusion it must be true long before most of the evidence was in or became available.

Darwin looking at a cell under a low power microscope would be like you seeing the outline of a automobile for the first time, but unable to see or understand th ...[text shortened]... ns the difference between what you believe or don't believe about the possible existence of God.

and scientists who like what the hypothesis implied came to the conclusion it must be true long before most of the evidence was in or became available.

What an idiotic statement. That is clearly false and clearly simply could not be further from the truth.

For starters, it is just an undisputed and commonly known historical fact that, in this case, the evidence came first via observations of the natural world and only THEN the hypothesis was made to explain the evidence. It is just a trivial observation that this fact is clearly in the historical records.

And, in fact, Darwin himself, who was a CHRISTIAN at least at that time of his discovery (later in life becoming an agnostic ) , HATED what his discovery implied (that the literal interpretation of the Bible was wrong ) and clearly said as much in his diary. He delayed publication of his discovery (a 'discovery' and not just a hypothesis because he already had pretty much conclusive evidence ) probably in part because of this and certainly in part of fear of the bad reaction by other Christians at the time. He eventually published it DESPITE NOT LIKING i.e. DESPITE HATING what his discovery implied and should be greatly commended for doing so.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]Only the ignorant doubt evolution

That's all you needed to say, because it's the only real argument you have.

I've studied evolution and it's history, and have seen how the accumulation of evidence over the past 50 years has been clearly pointing away from validation of this theory. But if it makes you feel better to call someone ignorant (wi ...[text shortened]... y all means, please continue to soothe yourself with this and other similar personal sentiments.[/b]

That's interesting. What evidence suggests that DNA does not influence the phenotype or does not mutate?

Originally posted by humy
I finally get it now. You don't answer some very simple questions to explain what you are saying because you are talking complete gibberish.

🙂 Well sorry, I'd thought someone with flawless logic and who has the
ability to know the future could grasp a simple man's meaning as myself.
If you cannot discern that, why do you think you could have perfect
understanding in anything else?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
🙂 Well sorry, I'd thought someone with flawless logic and who has the
ability to know the future could grasp a simple man's meaning as myself.
If you cannot discern that, why do you think you could have perfect
understanding in anything else?
Kelly

Because you quite often talk gobbledygook Kelly. 🙂

Originally posted by Soothfast
Tell me, when have the majority of scientists been wrong about a theory that turned out to be false? A theory, not a hypothesis. A theory that has stood up to test after test for a century, and fits empirical observation.

First of all let me tackle the terms science and scientistss: Science as it is currently understood is a very recent term (second half of 19th century). Not only it is a very recent term but the implications, practices, responsibilities associated with it are also very recent. Yes, one can trace back the history of science pretty far back, but one has to do it without incurring in the danger of being anachronistic. This is not looking into the eyes of the past with the eyes of today.

So if one really wants to look into the scientific tradition (greek miracle, scholasticism, islamic science, natural philosophy, etc.) and and see all of its dead alleys and points of nor return one will see a lot of Tell me, when have the majority of scientists been wrong about a theory that turned out to be false? instances:

Ptolomy's model (first example since it is a theory that stood up test after test for centuries and fitted empirical observations)
Aristotelian Physics mixed with christian world view
Astrology (Kepler, Galileu (less so), Tycho Brahe and Copernicus were all astologists)
Alchemy (Newton was foremost and alchemist and bible scholar and an incidental physicist and mathematician (as one would call him nowadays))
Descartes' vortex theory
19th century thermodynamics
Ether Hypothesis
BCS Theory (it is obviously wrong since we have high temperature superconductivity)
Etc.

And this list isn't even exhaustive...
Now I'm fully aware that there is a relativity of wrong (as Asimov put it), and as time passes scientific theories appear to be less wrong but I just wanted to point out that yes in the past you had a lot of respectable scientists backing up things that nowadays seem very far out. I only provided examples from physics since it is the science I know best, but I'd say that pretty much all other fields that are an applied and systematic search of knowledge suffer from the same fate.

Originally posted by KellyJay
🙂 Well sorry, I'd thought someone with flawless logic and who has the
ability to know the future could grasp a simple man's meaning as myself.
If you cannot discern that, why do you think you could have perfect
understanding in anything else?
Kelly

In answer to your question:

A person with flawless logic cannot understand complete gibberish else he thinks complete gibberish therefore is no such person.

Just in case you still don't understand, Hint:
you were talking complete gibberish (perhaps "a simple man's meaning" = "complete gibberish" then? 😛 ) and only a person with flawless logic "could have perfect understanding in anything else" other than such complete gibberish.

Pity you are not good enough to give a straight unencrypted concise plain-English answer to my questions just like I do to your questions -this is an unfair one-sided talk (but not a meaningful debate ) where only I (and some others like me ) give the straight answers.

and who has the ability to know the future

which parts? Know that the sun will rise tomorrow or who will win the next lottery? If the latter, I never claimed this and have no idea where you got that from. But I CAN claim to use LOGIC and certain observations to rationally predict SOME but NOT all future events with reasonable confidence. This would be a very common and very unremarkable ability.
Are you implying that I cannot even have this very unremarkable ability? or that such an ability doesn't exist?

Originally posted by adam warlock
First of all let me tackle the terms science and scientistss: Science as it is currently understood is a very recent term (second half of 19th century). Not only it is a very recent term but the implications, practices, responsibilities associated with it are also very recent. Yes, one can trace back the history of science pretty far back, but one has t ...[text shortened]... l other fields that are an applied and systematic search of knowledge suffer from the same fate.

Your list is comprised largely of hypotheses, one or two of which I even mentioned. Read my post again, because I asked when has a theory accepted by the great majority of scientists been proved flat-out false, by which I mean something that has stood up to observation, experimentation, and testing? I'm not talking about hypotheses, or some unfounded dogma that people just accepted in pre-scientific times. Back when the Ptolemaic model of the solar system was in vogue, there really was no scientific consensus that the model was true because there was as yet no scientific tradition to begin with. If that's what you're saying, then I agree.

If a creationist hereabouts wants to be clever, he can bring up classical mechanics and Newton's theory of gravity, which were superseded by quantum mechanics and general relativity, respectively. I'm prepared for that, because my response would be this: quantum mechanics and relativity did not "falsify" classical mechanics and Newton, they refined them. Quantum mechanics is a seamless extension of classical mechanics to the realm of the very small, while general relativity is a seamless extension of Newton's theory of gravitation to the realm of the very large.

As for the theory of evolution, it has been corroborated across a whole spectrum of unrelated disciplines ranging from embryology to genetics to people in pith helmets chipping fossils out of rocks. I won't suffer some ignorant ninny with an associate's degree in selling bangers at a train station coming by here proclaiming that the past half century of evolutionary research has been proving evolution to be wrong, because it is patently false propaganda being peddled by mendacious frauds whose daily mission is to fool the sucker who's born every minute. Creationists know their species is becoming extinct, and so they're desperate to camouflage the rotting foundations of their castle of contradictions with smoke and mirrors that sound like science to kids and scientifically illiterate adults.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Nope

Then what are you afraid of if you actually watch a couple of vid's about science?

Afraid it is the devils work and thus to be obsessively avoided?

Science has only been able to support minor variations that happen in breeding. There is no support for evilution, which is the change of one kind of animal into a different kind. The claim is that if you just add enough time then a frog can change into a handsome prince. Some of us are not stupid enough to believe that nonsense. And spontaneous generation of life has been disproved a long time ago, so claiming RNA molecules sponstaneously form is beating a dead horse. You ain't going nowhere with that one.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Your list is comprised largely of hypotheses, one or two of which I even mentioned. Read my post again, because I asked when has a theory accepted by the great majority of scientists been proved flat-out false, by which I mean something that has stood up to observation, experimentation, and testing? I'm not talking about hypotheses, or some unfoun ...[text shortened]... ons with smoke and mirrors that sound like science to kids and scientifically illiterate adults.

Back when the Ptolemaic model of the solar system was in vogue, there really was no scientific consensus that the model was true because there was as yet no scientific tradition to begin with. If that's what you're saying, then I agree.
That's more or less what I'm saying. But saying that there was no scientific tradition when talking about the Ptolemaic model is something that I don't agree with you and I'm sure no professional historian of science would say such a thing (starting with Kuhn).

Besides ether which I claimed as an hypothesis in my post (even though strictly speaking we can discuss if it really is an hypothesis or a theory/model) what are the other hypothesis in my list?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Because you quite often talk gobbledygook Kelly. 🙂

So, my gobbledygook and the universe's secrets, me you cannot discern
but the other is so clear to you. If that doesn't open your eyes to your
own high opinion of yourself, nothing will.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So, my gobbledygook and the universe's secrets, me you cannot discern
but the other is so clear to you. If that doesn't open your eyes to your
own high opinion of yourself, nothing will.
Kelly

Can you just come out and say you refuse to watch those two video's I posted?